str % vals -like idea but for statements

[Michael Hudson]

Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> writes:

> Andrew Koenig wrote:
> 
> > >> I don't think I will ever fully get used to 'and' being of type
> > >>
> > >> (bool, T) -> T
> > 
> > > It's not.  It's (T, T) -> T!
> > 
> > It's (T1, T2) -> union(T1, T2)
> 
> If we want to be completely anal, shouldn't it be
> 
> 	T1 x T2 -> T1 U T2
> 
> where x is the Cartesian product and U is the set union operator?  :-)
> 
> Your left hand side there is just an ordered pair of sets, rather than a
> set of ordered pairs :-).

You could make it T x T -> T if you meant T in the common lisp sense
of "all types" -- which probably makes most sense.

Cheers,
M.

-- 
  ... when all the programmes on all the channels actually were made
  by actors with cleft pallettes speaking lines by dyslexic writers
  filmed by blind cameramen instead of merely seeming like that, it
  somehow made the whole thing more worthwhile.   -- HHGTG, Episode 11